Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun, that describes a number of characteristics associated with higher brain functions only found in our species at this point. Any creature that displays them is a human-being, a being with human characteristics. The God of Abraham for example would be a human-being, as God is described as a being displaying these human characteristics. We are homo-sapiens, that’s our species. You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven’t developed human-traits yet. There is nothing human about the unborn, just as someone who becomes severely brain-damaged to the point where they no longer even have an inner monologue is not human. Words having meanings. Human is not a species, thus we are not conceived human-beings, we develop into one assuming all goes well.[/quote]

Good post. [/quote]

To clarify, I meant I agree that it was a good post in the sense that it’s such a piece of fucking, mindless drivel that it is a good post for strengthening the case of anti-abortionists by allowing them to point to said drivel and genuinely and appropriately scoff.[/quote]

To be fair, it is a good argument in favor of infanticide.
[/quote]

Yeah, and when You are asleep and those running backs and quarter backs who I knocked out in football. All of them don’t fit this guys definition of the adjective of human-being.

22

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun, that describes a number of characteristics associated with higher brain functions only found in our species at this point. Any creature that displays them is a human-being, a being with human characteristics. The God of Abraham for example would be a human-being, as God is described as a being displaying these human characteristics. We are homo-sapiens, that’s our species. You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven’t developed human-traits yet. There is nothing human about the unborn, just as someone who becomes severely brain-damaged to the point where they no longer even have an inner monologue is not human. Words having meanings. Human is not a species, thus we are not conceived human-beings, we develop into one assuming all goes well.[/quote]

Good post. [/quote]

To clarify, I meant I agree that it was a good post in the sense that it’s such a piece of fucking, mindless drivel that it is a good post for strengthening the case of anti-abortionists by allowing them to point to said drivel and genuinely and appropriately scoff.[/quote]

To be fair, it is a good argument in favor of infanticide.
[/quote]

Yeah, and when You are asleep and those running backs and quarter backs who I knocked out in football. All of them don’t fit this guys definition of the adjective of human-being. [/quote]

Just make sure your human but not-human-being baby does not self actualize as you are throttling it. That would be, like, evil.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun, that describes a number of characteristics associated with higher brain functions only found in our species at this point. Any creature that displays them is a human-being, a being with human characteristics. The God of Abraham for example would be a human-being, as God is described as a being displaying these human characteristics. We are homo-sapiens, that’s our species. You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven’t developed human-traits yet. There is nothing human about the unborn, just as someone who becomes severely brain-damaged to the point where they no longer even have an inner monologue is not human. Words having meanings. Human is not a species, thus we are not conceived human-beings, we develop into one assuming all goes well.[/quote]

Good post. [/quote]

To clarify, I meant I agree that it was a good post in the sense that it’s such a piece of fucking, mindless drivel that it is a good post for strengthening the case of anti-abortionists by allowing them to point to said drivel and genuinely and appropriately scoff.[/quote]

I think he was making a pro-life point…I think.

26

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun, that describes a number of characteristics associated with higher brain functions only found in our species at this point. Any creature that displays them is a human-being, a being with human characteristics. The God of Abraham for example would be a human-being, as God is described as a being displaying these human characteristics. We are homo-sapiens, that’s our species. You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven’t developed human-traits yet. There is nothing human about the unborn, just as someone who becomes severely brain-damaged to the point where they no longer even have an inner monologue is not human. Words having meanings. Human is not a species, thus we are not conceived human-beings, we develop into one assuming all goes well.[/quote]

Good post. [/quote]

To clarify, I meant I agree that it was a good post in the sense that it’s such a piece of fucking, mindless drivel that it is a good post for strengthening the case of anti-abortionists by allowing them to point to said drivel and genuinely and appropriately scoff.[/quote]

I think he was making a pro-life point…I think.
[/quote]

With a “there is nothing human about the unborn” remark?[/quote]

Well he assigned that status to kids under 2 as well as the brain damaged being of the same status as the unborn…But he whole point is wrong any way. Human is a noun too, it depends on the context. If say ‘Human being’ The human is describing the being and hence an adjective. If you say, I am a ‘human’, it’s a noun.
The point of the video is clear and correct which is why you don’t see many pro-abortionists posting here. Deep down they know it’s the taking of a humans life…It’s not any other kind of life.

27

Either way with all this definition crap he’s committing the fallacy of Equivocation Equivocation - Wikipedia

By definition when we say human (including: man, mankind, woman, human being, and humankind) we mean the three fold definition of a living material person:

  1. Unique DNA,
  2. Metabolism, and
  3. Responsive to stimuli.

Now there is a distinction between the word man and person. A man is always a person, but not always is a person a man. Angels are persons, and so is there three persons in the one Godhead. A person is afforded the right by God to be treated justly by Him and his fellow men.

To be treated justly is to be afforded the right to life; so, no innocent person shall be put to death unjustly.

28

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun.[/quote]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Human#hl=en&q=human&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=54RDTv7EAcHnsQL8l83gCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=14c45ae1d1586beb&biw=1280&bih=649

I don’t understand, the dictionary says it is a noun though.[/quote]

That dictionary is wrong, and is more like a wiki, identifying it’s colloquial usage, which is incorrect.

Try the OED.

Haman-being is a noun. But the “being” part makes it a noun: you, I and my cat are “beings”. Using human as a noun is a lazy shortening of human. It’s like a salesman. The “man” is ht noun, calling someone a “sales” is gibberish… until enough people that common usage and context make it intelligible, though still incorrect.

The point as it relates to this thread is that human is defined as a number of traits our species doesn’t develop until after being born: humanity is developed as we age.

This in itself is not a pro-abortion argument, but asks you to re-frame the abortion question to ask if there’s something inherent about our biological-selves when we are devoid of humanity, that we have a moral obligation to protect or treat as sacred.

If you’re arguing that abortion is wrong, always (as a categorical imperative), I guess it does place the burden on you to describe what aspect of pre-human/non-human homo-sapien life is different than other life in that we must always strive to preserve it.

If anything, there seems to less interested in categorically preserving the life after it has become human in that the non-human ‘innocence’ of the unborn and small children often compels to protect them more than someone who is actually human, and using their humanity to make bad/evil decisions.

But that seems to hinge on emotions and metaphysical beliefs, and while those should dictate our individual actions, I don’t believe they should be the mechanisms for creating laws.

29

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
If you’re arguing that abortion is wrong, always (as a categorical imperative), I guess it does place the burden on you to describe what aspect of pre-human/non-human homo-sapien life is different than other life.[/quote]

Does “the other life” develop through the human life cycle? I’ve never seen a young alligator hatch, grow, and head off to elementary school. And I watch a lot of wildlife show, too.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
If you’re arguing that abortion is wrong, always (as a categorical imperative), I guess it does place the burden on you to describe what aspect of pre-human/non-human homo-sapien life is different than other life.[/quote]

Does “the other life” develop through the human life cycle? I’ve never seen a young alligator hatch, grow, and head off to elementary school. And I watch a lot of wildlife show, too.
[/quote]

No, but the potentiality of something is different than the actuality of it. Still, if you want that to be your argument, that can be your argument: that anything that, given the normal course of events ought to develop into a human, ought to be given the legal status of a human-being.

I don’t buy that argument, because like I said, potential is not the same as actual. Because I could potentially become a brain surgeon, doesn’t mean the state should give me a medical license.

I also want to reiterate the distinction between what the state should regulate vs. what should drive individual’s actions. Because something is wrong, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

31

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

I don’t buy that argument, because like I said, potential is not the same as actual. Because I could potentially become a brain surgeon, doesn’t mean the state should give me a medical license.[/quote]

First, there is no potential as far as the individual life is concerned. It is actual. The embryo is actually in the human life cycle, just as you are today. Perhaps a different stage than you, but it is (as opposed to an alligator) already traveling the human life cycle. Just to be clear.

Now, allow me to bring your analogy closer to the topic. You are a doctor, potentially you will practice medicine, as you’ve yet to see your first ‘real’ patient. The state shoots you in the head, first. We were missing some killing.

32

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun.[/quote]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Human#hl=en&q=human&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=54RDTv7EAcHnsQL8l83gCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=14c45ae1d1586beb&biw=1280&bih=649

I don’t understand, the dictionary says it is a noun though.[/quote]

That dictionary is wrong, and is more like a wiki, identifying it’s colloquial usage, which is incorrect.
[/quote]

Really, the Oxford English Dictionary is more like a wiki?

[quote]human(hu·man) (n.)
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
[/quote]

Read more: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

I had no clue.

You’re trying to redefine what we mean. Just stop, you’re not furthering your argument. You’re just showing you can’t argue.

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

I don’t buy that argument, because like I said, potential is not the same as actual. Because I could potentially become a brain surgeon, doesn’t mean the state should give me a medical license.[/quote]

First, there is no potential as far as the individual life is concerned. It is actual. The embryo is actually in the human life cycle, just as you are today. Perhaps a different stage than you, but it is (as opposed to an alligator) already traveling the human life cycle. Just to be clear.

Now, allow me to bring your analogy closer to the topic. You are a doctor, potentially you will practice medicine, as you’ve yet to see your first ‘real’ patient. The state shoots you in the head, first. We were missing some killing.[/quote]

You mean the Homo sapien life cycle. The human part is potential at that stage. Just like reproductive ability is only potential at that stage.

34

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Human is an adjective, not a noun.[/quote]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Human#hl=en&q=human&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=54RDTv7EAcHnsQL8l83gCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=14c45ae1d1586beb&biw=1280&bih=649

I don’t understand, the dictionary says it is a noun though.[/quote]

That dictionary is wrong, and is more like a wiki, identifying it’s colloquial usage, which is incorrect.
[/quote]

Really, the Oxford English Dictionary is more like a wiki?

[quote]human(hu�?�·man) (n.)
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
[/quote]

Read more: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

I had no clue.

You’re trying to redefine what we mean. Just stop, you’re not furthering your argument. You’re just showing you can’t argue.[/quote]

I think you’d notice the first definition in OED is adjective. If you actually get the BIG book, or the full subscription version, you get a description of the entomology and evolution of the word and usage, and this would clear it up for you.

I also understand you are dead-set in your beliefs as they are informed by your religion. I have no problem with that, and am not trying to change your personal opinion about abortion. I would like to get people, who have the same personal beliefs on this issue as you, to at least entertain the idea that a secular government SHOULD see, and treat this issue differently than an individual, family or religious institution.

35

P.S. I checked my 20 Volume Oxford English Dictionary…same definition as on the website. So, I don’t think my $1000 dictionary is more like a wiki.

36

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
You mean the Homo sapien life cycle. The human part is potential at that stage. Just like reproductive ability is only potential at that stage.[/quote]

No, I mean human embryo, human infant, human adolescent, human adult.

http://www.med.uc.edu/embryology/contents.htm

38

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I think you’d notice the first definition in OED is adjective.[/quote]

And, you said it wasn’t a noun. So you admit the word “human” is a noun and not just an adjective? Okay, then our arguments are still correct in using “human” as a noun. Our definition for “human” has been a noun. So, like I said stop trying to change the definition of the words in our arguments.

Yes, words have multiple definitions. That is why you first define them. It is common knowledge that the word “human” is used as a noun in this argument.

In which of the 20 BIG books should I look for a definition of human that doesn’t include it being a noun?

I’m never dead-set in any of my beliefs. They can change, I doubt my beliefs all the time. Do I think they are wrong? No, I only believe in what I think is right; however, I would say with my inferior intellect, I am right about only 75% of the time. The one thing that doesn’t change…I look for the truth and I don’t change my stance in times of doubt…I only change in times of assurance.

My beliefs on this subject come from two sources, my time before joining the Catholic Church and my time after joining the Catholic Church. My time before is much more expansive than my time after. However, my reasons used here are pretty much natural reasons, or are formed in natural apologetics – that is compared to Christian or Catholic apologetics – in which I show from the natural light of reason. :slight_smile:

39

Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

40

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
anonfactor - Please inform me as to what they are, if not human?

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I simply need to say nothing, besides click the link.

I don’t think the fact that unborn children are human is in dispute. The argument (well, one of them) is over whether they are human beings and this is not addressed in the video at all.[/quote]
[/quote]

Perhaps I was not clear.

What I mean to say is that I agree with you, unborn children are human at conception, they are human even before then. This point is not in dispute, at least not seriously. However, they are not human beings at conception, emphasis on being. The latter is being conflated with the former. It’s understandable, but still incorrect.

It might seem like I’m playing semantics, but distinctions between the two terms can be distinctly drawn, even in the case of the unborn.